Gyrfalcon:freak7: Uranus Is Huge!: I only posted that pic to end the speculation. Doesn't look serious, but any time someone else leaves a mark on your face during a confrontation, it's hard not to call it battery.

So tell me, if that mark was caused by George, and the other things Shellie said are true, why did both decline in pressing charges? Why did Shellie change her story about George having a gun?

1. They wanted to avoid another media circus like the LAST time ol' Georgie was in trouble with the law.2. Because that always happens in domestic violence cases; what are you, some kind of idiot?

He can't earn in jail, and she is going to take his ass to the cleaners. She is playing the long game.

MFAWG:Gyrfalcon: freak7: Uranus Is Huge!: I only posted that pic to end the speculation. Doesn't look serious, but any time someone else leaves a mark on your face during a confrontation, it's hard not to call it battery.

So tell me, if that mark was caused by George, and the other things Shellie said are true, why did both decline in pressing charges? Why did Shellie change her story about George having a gun?

1. They wanted to avoid another media circus like the LAST time ol' Georgie was in trouble with the law.2. Because that always happens in domestic violence cases; what are you, some kind of idiot?

He can't earn in jail, and she is going to take his ass to the cleaners. She is playing the long game.

I wouldn't give her that much evil-genius cred. It's more likely the typical human nature of calling the cops in the heat of the moment when you're scared and then cooling down later when you realize the threat is over and you just don't want to deal with all the technical bullshiat. People call 911 over shiatty fast food service, for crissakes.

skylabdown:Yep... it's a biatch. If you are going to convict someone in your own mind regardless of the court proceedings, why do we even engage the legal system anyway? You seem to be a better abattoir of right and wrong yourself, right?

Wash, rinse, repeat. The same folks who are crying about GZ being found not guilty are by and large the same ones who thought it was fantastic that OJ got off scot-free.. and visa-versa. What's your point?

The two groups aren't so different. OJ's supporters ignored evidence and decided based on emotion, just like Zimmerman's detractors. Flip this around, and you get both OJ's detractors and Zimmerman's supporters, deciding on evidence rather than truthiness. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

gimmegimme:steamingpile: gimmegimme: freak7: 1. Shellie claimed that George punched her father in the face and that he had a "mark" and that it looked like his nose was broken. The police found no indication that the father had been struck. The father also declined in pressing charges for this phantom assault.

2. Shellie was on the phone with 911 when the police arrived on scene. She told the operator that the police were there and that George was in his car. The police say that George was standing on the lawn when they arrived.

3. Shellie claimed in the 911 call that George had his hand on his gun and was patting it, daring her to come closer. No gun was found on George. She then changed her story to say that she never saw a gun.

Somebody is going to jail, and it isn't George. Lying to 911 when on probation for lying to a judge is pretty farking stupid.

Have you seen the pictures of the father-in-law? He looks just like Zimmerman did on Martin Night. Like he went ten rounds with a mountain lion.

Funny those photos aren't anywhere to be found, link to a picture or quit posting bullshiat like you did in the other threads.

What? Did Zimmerman break your fingers with a thrown iPad?

WARNING! PIC AS GRAPHIC AS ZIMMERMAN'S PHOTOS. EWWWWW!

Yeah he has a fat nose already and what appears to be a scratch, Zimmerman nose was swollen so its not even close to the same.

I've had people demand how come Stand Your Ground didn't protect Trayvon! (seriously, I've seen this like 50 times on Twitter. It is like everybody works off the same narrative talking points). SYG doesn't apply in this case because apply the checklist of Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to Zimmerman. Somebody following you through a neighborhood doesn't mean that you can go and beat the hell out of them. And if you attack somebody before they reasonably present a threat of Serious Bodily Harm, then it isn't lawful self-defense, so SYG doesn't apply.

Prosecution's witness, Rachel Janteel, (Trayvon's girlfriend) was on Piers Morgan and said that the reason Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman was because he thought Zimmerman was a "gay rapist". And also that Martin didn't mean to kill Zimmerman, that was just a misunderstanding on Zimmerman's part, and really Travyon just wanted to give him the "whoop ass" (her words, not mine) which was a cultural thing and how they took care of people like that... Despite MSNBC's narrative to the contrary SYG doesn't allow you to give the "whoop ass" to somebody just because you think they're gay.

I've had people demand how come Stand Your Ground didn't protect Trayvon! (seriously, I've seen this like 50 times on Twitter. It is like everybody works off the same narrative talking points). SYG doesn't apply in this case because apply the checklist of Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to Zimmerman. Somebody following you through a neighborhood doesn't mean that you can go and beat the hell out of them. And if you attack somebody before they reasonably present a threat of Serious Bodily Harm, then it isn't lawful self-defense, so SYG doesn't apply.

Prosecution's witness, Rachel Janteel, (Trayvon's girlfriend) was on Piers Morgan and said that the reason Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman was because he thought Zimmerman was a "gay rapist". And also that Martin didn't mean to kill Zimmerman, that was just a misunderstanding on Zimmerman's part, and really Travyon just wanted to give him the "whoop ass" (her words, not mine) which was a cultural thing and how they took care of people like that... Despite MSNBC's narrative to the contrary SYG doesn't allow you to give the "whoop ass" to somebody just because you think they're gay.

Weatherkiss:/they were both assholes who could have easily avoided the situation to begin with

Except that one was walking home and minding his own business, while the other was driving around the streets in his truck with a loaded gun, and purposely got out of that truck to approach and confront the other one.One could also say that one of the people in this conflict was a minor (with a minor's mental patterns, emotions and experience), while the other was a 28 year old man, and that the grown man should have been the one who controlled the situation.Instead, we have one 28 year old man who somehow felt it was his responsibility to do what he did, even though the local cops (you know, the ones who are trained and sworn to handle such situations) explicitly tell their local neighborhood watch NOT to do what he did.

Children can be assholes, but that can be dismissed as they are still children. What was Zimmerman's excuse?

It's not mine. And yeah, that first 5th or so of the article does make Clint Eastwood's empty chair look sane. It gets better once you get past the first 5th and he actually starts talking about self-defense.

The key point is this:

It doesn't mean you can just shoot brown people who make you nervous. That's propaganda bullshiat. Even in the most lenient use of force law states (one of which I live in and taught this stuff for a decade) that's not how it works at all. Let me condense down a couple of hours of legal lecture into a few points to see if any given shoot is justified or not. Most states operate on the following criteria:

Would a Reasonable Person (like a jury) make the following assumptions in your circumstances?

Were you in fear of receiving Serious Bodily Harm from an attacker? (some states use the term Grievous Bodily Harm instead, but either way it means were you in fear for your life, or of getting a bad life threatening or potentially life altering injury? Also, in some states it is you, or a third person, meaning that you can get involved not just to save your life, but someone else's life as well)

If so, would a Reasonable Person come to the conclusion that your assailant(s) met the following three criteria:

* Did they have the Ability to cause you Serious Bodily Harm? (basically meaning can they actually hurt you?)* Did they have the Opportunity to cause you Serious Bodily Harm? (basically meaning can they reach you with their ability?)* Were they acting in a manner that suggested they were an Immediate Threat? (basically meaning are they actually acting like they're going to do all this stuff to you now? Some states refer to this as Jeopardy)

Check. Check. Check... Bang. That's fundamentally how the law works. Keep in mind in a class I would spend an hour going over examples of shoot and no shoot situations based on those things, but that's basically all there is to it.

So let's look at Trayvon Martin getting shot by George Zimmerman. Go through the criteria. The stuff leading up to it is basically irrelevant for this portion. Serious Bodily Harm? In most cases there aren't even any physical injuries to show, and you're still justified just by the reasonable belief of potential threat, but in this case there are actual injuries. Slamming your head into pavement meets the legal threshold. In fact, any blow to the head sufficient to render you unconscious is sufficient to kill you, and also if somebody renders you unconscious a reasonable man can say that you can assume they're not going to stop there. So good to go.

Right there, within a couple of days of the shooting most of the self-defense instructors in the nation looked at this case and said, yep, he's getting off. Not because of race, because for us you could flip the races and it was the 1/8th black Peruvian that got shot after committing battery against a black guy, and the answer remains the same, because that's how the law is structured.

Is this really the best you have? I would post pictures showing Zim's bloodied and broken nose, but I suspect you're just a troll with nothing better to do. USA vs Mexico just started, does that do anything for you?

Soccer? Mexico? Why would you assume I'm a minority? Do you really see this as a racial case? I see a man who has a history of violence that extends through the whole of his adult life, who simply can't stop himself from getting involved in violent and dangerous situations.

And it's totally disingenuous to post Zim's boo boo pre-wipe wipe. After five seconds with a wet paper towel, the two men have the same life-changing facial injuries, right? Why didn't the father-in-law defend himself, right?

Here's hoping they can pull the video from that iPad. The evidence should be fascinating.

Millennium:skylabdown: Yep... it's a biatch. If you are going to convict someone in your own mind regardless of the court proceedings, why do we even engage the legal system anyway? You seem to be a better abattoir of right and wrong yourself, right?

Wash, rinse, repeat. The same folks who are crying about GZ being found not guilty are by and large the same ones who thought it was fantastic that OJ got off scot-free.. and visa-versa. What's your point?

The two groups aren't so different. OJ's supporters ignored evidence and decided based on emotion, just like Zimmerman's detractors. Flip this around, and you get both OJ's detractors and Zimmerman's supporters, deciding on evidence rather than truthiness. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I call BS. Most of these Zimmerman fanboys here (trolls, Nabb1, Dow Jones, etc.) have made so many excuses for this piece of shiat, that they can't dis-invest themselves of him. They staked their political beliefs in a loser, and now they have to go down on the ship. Now tell me this, it's been about two months since his acquittal and he's been in trouble with the police three times and been in the news at least 6 times. Does this sound like some average Joe Citizen, or some braying asshole looking for a confrontation?

BTW, at least most OJ defenders cut bait with him when he proved to be an attention whore. Did I think he was guilty? Yeah, but if you're going to assume that the Zimmerman jury was impartial, then do the same for OJ. Hell Casey Anthony had the decency to stay out of the public eye after her trial. But keep on defending him - he'll be in prison in two years at this rate.

NightOwl2255:freak7: Casing houses after meeting some guys at 7-11 to sell some weed, but I get your point.

I'm guessing frep's alt. Has to be, he's the only one that's been farking that chicken for months.

Well, I heard that Zimmerman broke the iPad because his wife was going to release Zimmerman's special recipe for Purple Drank Meth. Whether or not you realize it, Zimmerman has spent the past couple months teaming with Chik-Fil-A to distribute the purest meth in the South. Where do you think all of this money came from? Zimmerman was out of work for several months and now he owns cars and a house and iPads and a massive bank account he might lose in the divorce. It's not like he got a 9-to-5 at Home Depot, dudes.

No! George Zimmerman is the reincarnation of Jesus and being persecuted by evil doers! Like his former concubine Shellie who is now a painted Jezebel shilling for ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS and probably even the Food Channel.

JAGChem82:Now tell me this, it's been about two months since his acquittal and he's been in trouble with the police three times and been in the news at least 6 times. Does this sound like some average Joe Citizen, or some braying asshole looking for a confrontation?

Don't you understand, just like all the accusers before the shooting, they are all liars! Liars I tell you! People have been maligning poor St. Zimmerman for years. He's as pure as the driven snow, and don't you forget it.

JAGChem82:Millennium: skylabdown: Yep... it's a biatch. If you are going to convict someone in your own mind regardless of the court proceedings, why do we even engage the legal system anyway? You seem to be a better abattoir of right and wrong yourself, right?

Wash, rinse, repeat. The same folks who are crying about GZ being found not guilty are by and large the same ones who thought it was fantastic that OJ got off scot-free.. and visa-versa. What's your point?

The two groups aren't so different. OJ's supporters ignored evidence and decided based on emotion, just like Zimmerman's detractors. Flip this around, and you get both OJ's detractors and Zimmerman's supporters, deciding on evidence rather than truthiness. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I call BS. Most of these Zimmerman fanboys here (trolls, Nabb1, Dow Jones, etc.) have made so many excuses for this piece of shiat, that they can't dis-invest themselves of him. They staked their political beliefs in a loser, and now they have to go down on the ship. Now tell me this, it's been about two months since his acquittal and he's been in trouble with the police three times and been in the news at least 6 times. Does this sound like some average Joe Citizen, or some braying asshole looking for a confrontation?

BTW, at least most OJ defenders cut bait with him when he proved to be an attention whore. Did I think he was guilty? Yeah, but if you're going to assume that the Zimmerman jury was impartial, then do the same for OJ. Hell Casey Anthony had the decency to stay out of the public eye after her trial. But keep on defending him - he'll be in prison in two years at this rate.

Spot on. It's the same thing with W and Sarah Palin and Karl Rove and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Mitt Romney. Even right-wingers know that they were wrong about everything and were merely greedy opportunist with a talent for exploiting people, but no one can admit it because they still have six cases of "Going Rogue" in their garage that they're trying to sell at Tea Party rallies.